thanks for the support guys, I was just blowing off some steam and now I'm cool.<img src=icon_smile_cool.gif border=0 align=middle>
now for your reading enjoyment safe spending:
Say you had just enough money to live on? Not enough to buy a new car or home, just enough to cover living expenses. Say then your car becomes too old to drive or your family increased? What would you do? Well the same thing has to the military. Their equipment is too old and their doctrine has changed during the time when they’ve been given just enough to live on. This fact has troubled or military recently, and has not aloud them to change to meet the threats of today and tomorrow. Due to drastic cuts in military spending after the Cold War, the United States will be in a disadvantageous position for future confrontations with major world powers.
Has the spending on military really dragged sense the end of the Cold War? According to the department of the state it has. In the 1999-2000 World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfer Report the Untied States has cut military spending by 23 billion dollars from 1989 to 1999. We have gone from spending 25.5 percent of our government expenditures on the military to 15.7 percent. The number of troops dropped from 2.24 million to 1.49 million personal. A table complied by Martin Calhoun shows an almost 1/3 cut in military spending from 1989 to 1996.
Numbers can be confusing, so what do all those numbers mean? In The Military Readiness Subcommittee Hearing held on February 29, 2000 it becomes evident that there isn’t enough money to keep up military readiness.
“Setting aside these growth factors, there is very little new money to arrest and turn around the declining readiness problems that are plaguing our military. In addition, the budget before us projects that readiness funding levels will decrease by nearly $2 billion in fiscal year 2002.” -Herbert H. Bateman, Virginia, Chairman
Over the years these ‘small’ cuts in the military has begun to add up into a real problem facing the military. “…estimated that the unfunded shortfall in the next five years to be at $84.2 billion.”-Bateman. This has perversely affected the military personal. Their pay has been cut and benefits reduced. This is very unfavorable because this gives little incentive to join and stay in the military. Thus creating a smaller less dedicated fighting force.
It is true that United States won the Cold War. It is not true that The United States is not threatened. New threats in the post Cold War world are smaller and appear quicker. It is logical then to transform the military into a more condensed fighting force that can quickly be deployed to various hot spots around the world. So the military doctrine changed from having to fight a two front war to having to fight a muti-front war.
There has not been any new major weapon systems introduced since the end of the Cold War. No innovative new ships or aircraft. Although there has been many new aircraft that have been on the designing block for a long time, they have been attempted to be killed by Congress.[Johnson] Some argue that the new systems have been designed to fight the Soviets and are not particle for the new doctrine. [Moran] Even though the F-22 and other systems where designed to fight the Red Army, they were designed in such a way that it makes them easy to transform into fighters for the war on terrorism. While Congress fights the creation of new aircraft, the Aircraft already in service are becoming old. Each year they require more maintenance and become more expensive to deploy. The same is true with the Army’s tanks and the Navy’s ships.
There are new threats on the horizon. The threats are different than the old Soviet Union, but they are just as potent. Some of the threats have the ability to take up were the Soviets left off. China is a dangerous communist country that has the ability and desire to become a major world power. China is interested in ‘shaping’ the world for their interest. Other countries in the region are of equally threat as China. North Korea, Vietnam, and dozens of small radical groups call the area home. Don’t fool yourself about Islam. The religion has declared war on the United States. The fundamentalist in the Middle East will not rest until they have every American killed.
The former Soviet Union is defiantly a hot spot in the world. The economical and political situation makes it’s a favorable location for dictator ship to rise up and seize power.
The United States is at war. There is no ifs ands or buts about it. There is a threat in the Middle East that should be address. Even though some countries and people don’t agree so, The United States need to address the threat. The United States can’t just go after Afghanistan and expect the threat to disappear, it won’t. The United States need to keep a force present in the region to help deter and hunt out our attackers. On top of that the United States should be aloud to engage people hostel to the United States quickly and without lengthy UN process, enforced by ‘Pacifies’ countries that illegal pump oil out of regions in question. When the United States is not aloud to attack swiftly this gives a message to the hostel people. The message that the United States is not a threat, they are not being punished, and they’re culture has a harder time link up the attacks made on them is related to the 2001 attacks on the US. More money for the military would mean they could continue their presents in the region.
After US involvement in the Gulf war and operation Allied Force, in Kosovo, the Chinese government was highly impressed (and frighten) by The US’s high technologies. This lead the Chinese to restructure their military to country this. Out of their 5.2 million troops (all combined forces of the PLA, PAP, and reserves) they plane to create a small force with “high technology” that can respond to threats around the region. They also plane to have the bulk of their force armed with “low to medium-technology” for combating “internal conflicts.” [2000 congress report] According to an article written by Li Heng, the Chinese military will developed the level of military technology need by 2020. The Chinese military also has planes in place for repelling military forces armed with “high technology,” i.e. United States. Their plans include attacking, across a channel, quickly at the beginning of the war before the full force arrives. They
believe that if they could not survive a bombing campaign, so they will focus on destroy any air bases in the area with quickly. [2000 congress report] It is clear that through these pushes in developing their military have created a high probability of creating another Cold War/Arms Race.
With nearly double the amounts of tank, artillery and aircraft North Korea could quickly sweep the rest of the peninsula before sufficient amounts of American troops arrive. This leaves the Korean peninsula in a situation very similar to Berlin during the Cold War. Likewise the North Korean tactics are similar to the Soviet’s. The North Koreans want to create a tactile nuclear force to cancel out the American’s tactile nuclear force. If the North Korean troops mobilize then North Korea with threaten Japan and even the US with a nuclear strike to prevent the US from attacking their forces with nukes. [Parpart] In the 1999-2000 World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfer Report North Korea had 1 million troops in 1999 and spent 4.26 billion on their military. That’s 18.8 percent of their Gross national product. They also have recently gained new MiG-29 fighters. They also have developed and deployed the “feared advanced Taepodong 2 launch [pad].” [Parpart] The threat of North Korea to the United States can not be underestimated, they do have a missile capable of hitting the west cost and they also are running a nuclear facility that doesn’t produce any electricity only weapon grade plutonium.
The United States also has duties that include policing the world. There are dozens of hot spots around the world and recently the United States has been in the habit of defusing them. Through the UN, NATO, and the US own objective, over the years United States been involved in a large number of the world’s conflicts. There are no signs of stopping. This habit has cost by creating many enemies. The United States need to keep it’s military spending up to help deter these enemies and to keep being involved in world problems.
The United States is at a crossroads now. They have the ability to stop and deter the threat they face now and in the future. China has increased it’s spending over the same ten years from 54.4 billion to 88.9 billion dollars, 22.2 percent of their central government’s spending. North Korea spends 18.8 percent of their GNP Saudi Arabia has increased it’s military spending over from 1989 to 1999 by 2.8 billion, 43 percent of it’s government’s spending! All that time the military spending of the United States is decreasing. From 1989 to 1999 the spending has DECRESSED by 23 billion, now only 15.7 percent of the government’s spending. If these trends continue the military of the United States will not be effect, it will not deter. We can prevent this from happening by increasing spend and showing our military force. If they see our strength and military they many not even try to gain the military force to engage the United States of America. What can we do about this? Write your senator, write your congressman, write to anyone who would lesson. Make noise and good arguments. This can be changed and you can help change it.
then I was told it could only be 2 pages longe so here's what I got a C on.
Say you had just enough money to live on? Not enough to buy a new car or home, just enough to cover living expenses. Say then your car becomes too old to drive or your family increased? Well the same thing has happened to the military. Their equipment is too old and their doctrine has changed during the time when they’ve been given just enough to live on. This fact has not aloud them to change to meet the threats of tomorrow. Due to drastic cuts in military spending after the Cold War, the United States will be in a disadvantageous position for future confrontations with major world powers.
Has the spending on the military really dragged sense the end of the Cold War? In the Department of State’s 1999-2000 World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfer Report the Untied States has cut military spending by 23 billion dollars from 1989 to 1999. The US has gone from spending 25.5 percent of government expenditures on the military to 15.7 percent. The number of troops dropped from 2.24 million to 1.49 million personal. A table complied by Martin Calhoun shows an almost 1/3 cut in military spending from 1989 to 1996.
Numbers can be confusing, so what do all those numbers mean? In The Military Readiness Subcommittee Hearing held on February 29, 2000 it becomes evident that there isn’t enough money to keep up military readiness. “…there is very little new money to arrest and turn around the declining readiness…the budget before us projects that readiness funding levels will decrease by nearly $2 billion in fiscal year 2002.” -Herbert H. Bateman. Over the years these ‘small’ cuts in the military has begun to add up into a real problem facing the military. “…estimated that the unfunded shortfall in the next five years to be at $84.2 billion.”-Bateman.
Although there has been many new aircraft that have been on the designing block for a long time, Congress has attempt to killed them. [Johnson] Some argue that the new systems are designed to fight the Soviets and are not particle for the new doctrine. [Moran] This is true but,
they were designed in such a way that it makes them easy to transform into fighters for the war on terrorism. Each year the old systems require more maintenance and become more expensive to deploy.
There are a few spot in the world that could quickly turn into another cold war. China has an expressed desire to expand its influence in the world and has well-developed plans of attack for a war with America. [Secretary of Defense] In twenty years the Chinese will have reached the US’s technological level of war. [Heng] China has increased it’s spending over the same ten years from 54.4 billion to 88.9 billion dollars, 22.2 percent of their central government’s spending. [Dept. of State] North Korea’s situation is very similar to Berlin’s during the Cold War. They have nearly double the tanks and troops than the South Korea and US deployments. [Parpart] North Korea also restarted a nuclear reactor that only produces weapon grade plutonium along with missiles that can hit the US. According to WMEAT North Korea has spends 18.8 percent of their GNP on the military in 1999. There are other threats to the United States in the Middle East former Soviet Union, and Eastern Europe. Saudi Arabia has increased it’s military spending over from 1989 to 1999 by 2.8 billion, 43 percent of it’s government’s spending! The Russian people are beaten and in a depression; a good leader could rise up and lead them to war with the US. The American Armed forces make up the large part of NATO and UN. The US is used to police the world. In order to keep these future threats at bay and to keep up the US presence all around the world.
The lack of spend on the military has opened the door for hostile countries to challenge the US in the Future. The US can prevent this before it begins. If the US increased the spending and deployed our troops, the countries would see the might of the US military. They would never try to get The US. But if the US decrease the spending then they will take the opportunity to strike the US.
I kind'a take a diffrent stance on the new aircraft come into service other than tomcat. <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>
"my heart is with them, but my mind has contempt for them. I want peace, but I know how to get it, and they do not." - Woodrow Wilson
Edited by - flyboy on Mar 07 2003 7:06 PM
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
